MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2468616161 · doi:10.60082/2817-5069.2958

The Bunk House Rules: A Materialist Approach to Legal Consciousness in the Context of Migrant Workers’ Housing in Ontario

2016· article· en· W2468616161 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Adrian A. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueOsgoode Hall law journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLabor Movements and Unions
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterialismLegal consciousnessConsciousnessSociologyOpposition (politics)LawContext (archaeology)ColonialismPolitical sciencePoliticsHistoryPsychologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, I tackle the controversy surrounding an application to convert an abandoned school into housing for migrant agricultural workers in Ontario. I examine how the written reactions of community residents to a proposed municipal zoning by-law amendment convey and invoke understandings of the legal regulation of temporary labour migration. Viewed through a legal consciousness analytical lens that has been reconstituted to attend to the material practices and contexts underpinning residents’ responses (a materialist approach to legal consciousness), the submissions intervene in the organization and regulation of agricultural labour. While rehearsing well-worn, racist colonial tropes, these responses (re)produce material outcomes affecting the working and social lives of migrant farm workers. I argue that residents’ overwhelming opposition to the bunk house proposal re-inscribes and even extends the unfree labour conditions in which these workers toil and dwell. In this way, residents perpetuate growers’ control not merely of labour power but also of racialized labouring bodies, deepening workers’ regulatory immobilization and hyper-exploitation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.903
Threshold uncertainty score0.665

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOsgoode Hall law journalSame topicLabor Movements and UnionsFrench-language works237,207